tv [untitled] December 6, 2011 5:00pm-5:30pm EST
people after all the work we've done there's nothing else we could do with such bill take military action but of course you take military action it is unacceptable for iran to have a nuclear weapon and the us is willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that doesn't happen even if it means going to war with iran but given the media blitz down drones in assassinated scientists it begs the question has the war already begun. i would like to extend my sincere condolences well sometimes sorry isn't enough pakistan is hitting the brakes on its relationship with the us closing key supply routes to afghanistan and now russia might have to do the same if the us
keeps taking advantage we'll dig into the root of the problem. and while the american military deals with literally roadblocks so you have got it share a financial potholes to deal with on the bumpy road to recovery but with threats mounting of a credit downgrade is the e.u. on life support. it's tuesday december sixth five pm in washington d.c. i'm liz wahl and you're watching our t.v. well we begin tonight with a question is the u.s. close to war with iran tensions between tehran and the west continue to escalate recent events show both countries are engaging in a dangerous political game just this past weekend iran claims to have shot down a u.s. drone flying over the country on the same day explosions outside the british embassy and bahrain this after the u.s. claimed iran is behind a plot to kill
a saudi ambassador to washington right here on u.s. soil there's been a series of other mysterious explosions as well as assassinations of key scientists meanwhile the u.s. is cracking down on the country through a series of sanctions all this has some asking are we already at war with iran. let's take a look at some of the headlines on the web today. these are the headlines from the daily mail the atlantic and newsmax all of them asked the very same question are we already at war with iran now officials on both sides have not shied away from rallying to go to war how can you forget senator john mccain's performance a few years back but over the old beach boys song bomb iran. bomb bomb by them but anyway and more recently republican presidential candidates have said that we aren't being aggressive enough with iran taking a romney for example to recognize the greatest threat that america in the world faces and faced was a nuclear iran and he did not do what was necessary to get iran to be dissuaded
from their nuclear folly what he should have done to speak out with dissidents took to the streets and say america is with you and we're going to covert basis to encourage the dissidents but with everything that has happened is this proof that a covert war is already happening but answer just that i spoke to author it's really here is his take. i think that for the a number of years western intelligence agencies have been active inside that country there's been enough evidence to suggest it and the pressure is building on the regime in tehran to comply with the needs of the west or else or as what are they going to invade are they going to use the israelis to knock out a nuclear reactor has i mean that would be so irrational on the part of the american ruling elite that my i my opinion has been for several years that the pentagon in particular is not in favor of starting a new war against
a concrete which has quite well organized army navy and air force and a country in which if they begin the war the war would spread very rapidly into iraq to probably is ruled by lebanon and the gloves off in the on the stone. confined to back on four different from to is and we are saying that israel is gearing up to go to war with iran and israel does take that step do you think that the u.s. will follow soon and also go to war. i think the last i read about the u.s. response to that was mr panetta response from the pentagon that the united states was completely opposed to any unilateral attacks on iran buys directly made quite a strong statement for him one assumes that that is the official u.s.
position in which case there are a lot be in favor of it because no one will believe that the israeli regime carried out an attack on iran without a green light from the united states even if they do it in the u.s. hasn't given the green light no one in the region would believe that so for the united states to stop this so that is what they wish to do they will have to intervene forcefully with the israelis but my own feeling is that the israelis really already isolated in that region with the events in egypt and other parts of the arab world will think very hard before before launching an attack on iran's nuclear reactor because that would be a declaration of war and you know we are seeing leaders on both sides kind of cracking down and using harsh rhetoric at almost pushing to go to
war or at least to to prevent diplomatic talks from happening between the two countries and i want to ask you to riga who stands to benefit from going to war with iran. well to be perfectly frank my own opinion is that going to war in iraq would be against the interests of the united states in that region i mean the israelis are obsessed with the iranian nuclear reactors because they want to preserve their own nuclear monopoly in that region but that may be an israeli need for us though it's foolish even on their part why should they have a monopoly but. it can't be in the chris of the united states to de frank iran i mean the iranians have a perfect right to do what they're doing even though they say they're not surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons israel has nuclear weapons pakistan
has nuclear weapons india has nuclear weapons china has nuclear weapons united states vessels armed with nuclear weapons patrol bases so the uranium so are right to be nervous and these days people acquire nuclear weapons as a method of self defense. ok and. i want to ask you. because we are seeing this increased tension between the two countries especially in the wake of these recent events most recently there was a drone that landed in anywhere on iran claims that they shot it down the u.s. hasn't verified best but i mean could this be seen as an act of an act of war well i regard drones as an actor or even though american lawyers backing the obama administration have been defending them and saying that it's a legitimate activity for the united states to do because the question is did the
united states launch the grown if indeed it was launched over was it the israelis are they testing the waters or something else that has what it seems like to me it's perfectly possible that the iranians trotted down one reads that they have quite a sophisticated anti aircraft and then two missile defense system. which they've bought from friend b. powers well if if if it was a test from it failed because they are in the in smoke. ok so this is just one of many examples of increased tension between the two countries do you think that this could it signify a pretext to all to an all out war or whether iran whether it's court but who is going to authorize such a war it's totally impossible that such a war would be authorized by the security council because i think the chinese and
the russians would be to it i think brazil is hostile to any such idea for war i think the indians would not favor such a war so you would have. the bric countries which are quite important economically and as trading partners in their own way hostile to a war with iran that means it would be the israelis in the arab world with the saudis wanting it but not daring to say so openly the united states and its european allies of course they could do it but the consequences would be dire not just for the region but for the all supplies the rest of the world who i am i remain to be convinced i still feel that what is going on is a lot of rocket arrive too late to scare the terror on regimes into accepting the
west's decisions on it but i may be wrong it may be more serious than that in and if that is the case then i think the world would be in the grimmest situation for a long long time and you know you're kind of taking this more optimistic stance that perhaps if this all out all out war. is in and imminent but what about a possible repeat of libya if this war isn't declared but you know where they are thousand no fly zone and that ultimately led to war do you see that happening. the no fly zone was a stablish by the security council which gave it a near of. you know sort of international legal approval and in my opinion the russians and the chinese were completely wrong to support that
and others should have voted against it and not abstained but with that they went into libya i don't think they're going to get legal sanction from a from the security council so are they going to do it unilaterally like they did in iraq well if they do they will have a price debate that's the point i'm thing they can get away with attacking iran because it's going to be impossible to occupy that country if they just make war on it from above and destroy the nuclear reactors these nuclear reactors are spread all over the country it's not just one area so it would be seen as an act of war in the iranians to retaliate wherever they think fit so where is that going to get the united states it's not something that they can win ok terry go i want to ask you one more question beyond iran we are seeing this increased tension in the region what pakistan with afghanistan especially after the u.s.
a nato airstrike that accidentally killed twenty four pakistani and pakistan is now taking action telling the u.s. to get out and to take their drones out of the country so in the region we are seeing this growing anti american sentiment what is behind it. what is behind it is a refusal off obama and the democrats to understand that the afghan war has to be ended and that they have to withdraw the nato troops from that every time they shrink from making that judgment they escalate the war in pakistan because. imagine that without. stunning support this war would come to an end which is a wrong assumption that the resistance in of on this may help from pakistan or others but it is quite autonomous and it's very difficult to occupy a country against the will look it's people with
a puppet government that is totally corrupt and capable solving any of the real needs of the country and whose rich doesn't extend to outside kabul i mean god sized brother was executed when he was his funeral was being organized that was bombed senior figures from the regime have been wiped out the. gun resistance is becoming more and more cheeky it is saying it's prepared to form a national government before troops were drawn and that is why by the way this bombing officium mosque that took place i think is largely instigated by those who want to create a permanent divide between the bush dunes and the husband i was and the people in close to iran want to break off any notion that they can get together and fight i mean i would be it would be very interesting to see how this one pans out as for
attacking a pakistani checkpoint post and killing his son these soldiers i mean they knew it was a focus on the trick because because they had been given the maps they knew it wasn't a mistake to it and they bombed it and it's created a complete crisis within the focus on the military and in the country as large the pakistani elite however is pretty craven they have to say what they're saying of the moment but behind the scenes then the goshi thing i mean the pakistani prime minister asking britain to be in. to me jury is that britain was somehow independent nation state rather than a vessel of the united states did make me smile a bit but they're desperate to make up with the united states but it's the pressures coming from the united states and it's crazy it's crazy because it's do you stabilising the one institution in that country which has held it together for
good over bad largely for the but that's the pakistani military what they're trying to do are they're trying to instigate a civil war in pakistan prior to direct intervention and occupation i can't quite believe that because it's not going to be easy so it's a completely rational act whether that was alter ised who by washington or whether it was a local decision i don't know well who did it didn't do the united states any favors terry thank you so much for weighing in on all that that was author tariq ali and as we just discussed nato's recent delhi air strikes in pakistan have had some serious repercussions putting the u.s. ongoing mission in afghanistan in danger by cutting up a much needed supply routes into the country washington may have to shift gears and go into a different direction in order to reach the country mainly to russia. has more
on the. supplies are would keep a war running nato actions have put all operations in afghanistan in danger. after attacks that killed twenty four pakistani soldiers islamic art cut off one of the alliances major supply routes to again this time. i would like to extend my most sincere condolences. but still pakistan washington's condolences were not enough to repeated incursions by the u.s. military in pakistan really left no choice and also the humiliation that the pakistani military faced in front of its own soldiers and the pakistani people left no choice before the government this time but to cut off the supply line good relations between the u.s. and pakistan as unstable as ever in order to keep the warring of ghana stand running nato relies more on its other major supply route coming from the more. here it is the north and distribution network you see all these blue lines and here is
the route that pakistan shut down now the northern supply network was thought it when russia agreed to provide this territory and airspace for transit if non-lethal supplies to nato troops in afghanistan it proved to be a very reliable route more reliable than pakistan now it accounts for half of nato as non-lethal supplies on trucks railroads and by air supplies travel through russian territory from europe and from russia's far east all the way to afghanistan and the reliance on this route is set to expand in the last three years russia's cooperation on of ghana sent has been key to nato operations there. i set down with professor michael lee haas who stressed he was speaking in a personal capacity the u.s. has a very tenuous kind of placement. in the afghanistan and it is highly vulnerable it's highly vulnerable. pakistanis but it's more
vulnerable to russia i mean if russia were to withdraw its permission for us to use its railroads we would be in a very difficult position in afghanistan the northern supply network could now be in danger because of a failure in diplomacy moscow says because washington turned down all of its proposals on the missile defense issue russia might have to resort to other arguments including its cooperation with nato on afghanistan. and their processes which are critically important for russia which are about russia's national security one of them is nato expansion into russian borders and the fact that washington goes ahead with a robust missile shield program in europe without taking into consideration russia's concerns gives moscow the right to use any leverage it has to be heard by its partner but even the mere possibility that russia could cut off the northern supply route threatens the viability of all western operations in afghanistan nato
risks leaving almost one hundred forty thousand of its troops in afghanistan without vital supplies if diplomacy doesn't win the day with pakistan it's about people there being fed up with russia it's about their national security if washington does not seriously address the concerns of its partners even the best partnerships can fade i'm going to check our reporting from washington r.t. . well still ahead on r t on the brink of collapse the european union has reached a breaking point this week a math credit downgrade is even possible even probable very soon that is unless they can get their financial ducks in a row and fast well speaking we caught up with max proud well about what this means for the global economy next. there's the police corruption it was
the collapse of the euro zone growing evidence today fifteen euro zone countries now on standby after being told a mass credit downgrade as possible in the near future and response the euro crisis a new political alliance is threatening to impose a set of rules on their fellow euro zone countries the so-called. that is and germany's angela merkel and france's sarkozy they are demanding automatic sanctions for nations that fail to balance their budgets joining us now to talk more about this about the eurozone crisis is senior analyst at green crowd capital max fred well welcome max so standard and poor's put fifteen countries on alert there in danger of being downgraded what would the significance of this be well if we actually saw a downgrade what the alert means is that there's a fifty fifty chance that a downgrade action will be taken in the next ninety days if there isn't some kind
of action to ameliorate the problems if we saw anything like the fifteen nation downgrade particularly the downgrades of france and germany that are bundled into that as well as austria we would have an event much larger than lehman brothers that would cascades of the global markets and would push a teetering and very vulnerable european monetary union into true crisis as well as sending very damaging shock waves to the go global economy and global financial markets virtually instantaneously and smashing asset prices all over the world well you know certainly that sounds awful but we all knew that things were bad in the euro zone doesn't this just verify what we what we already know about the region. well yeah i mean it verifies that we know there's a true there's a sort of seriously impaired situation that europe is kind of teetered buying small amounts of time at the crossroads between a different future which is quite highly viable and a real disastrous disorderly wind down of the european union experiment but we've
teetered there for way too long there's been a sort of sense that the e.c.b. the i.m.f. the sovereign policymakers in many of the european countries believed and conducted themselves as though they had more time than they did while the financial markets screamed out as did critics you don't have more time you don't have more time and they kind of leisurely looked at their watches and tried to do what was good for them domestically politically and acted like they had time that there was every indication did not actually exist and can we talk about in the event that this this does happen and it looks like a it's very likely that it will happen and how the situation in the e.u. can affect confidence in global economies even here in the u.s. i don't think we're near term fifteen country downgrade what we are going to see is a smaller more unified european union probably with some of the marginal states that were struggling here which have the highest debt burdens no longer part of the mechanism the question is do we get a stronger smaller more unified with fiscal as well as monetary union europe and if
so how do we get there how orderly how voluntary how disorderly how valan involuntary and how much time and effort do german authorities and i.m.f. and e.c.b. authorities spend trying to force through a wish list of policy concessions from other countries while the clock runs out and the sands grow short in the hourglass and you know certainly whatever happens could it will have a global impact world leaders are concerned some are even pointing fingers here is that nigel faraj he is the co president for the europe of freedom and democracy that group expressing his anger at the situation. you are all aimed denial by any objective measure the euro is a failure and who is actually responsible hooting shone out of you lot one of those the answer is none of you because none of you have been elected none of you actually have any democratic legitimacy for the roles that you currently hold within this crisis so i mean just your reaction to that is the euro
a failure is this whole system for for seventeen countries is it a little too ambitious of the europeans in the euros in terrible shape as your europe writ large there are already heading into a recession with global ramifications i think it is important to talk about how serious the crisis is and also to remember that british and american commentators have successfully forecasted one hundred of the twelve actual problems that the euro has had and there have been a number of folks rooting against the euro sometimes quite unwisely on their own behalf the crisis is real it's very serious the future will be different than the past but the total apocalypse scenario is still highly avoidable and i don't think the entire euro experiment is a disaster i think that's premature and has a dose of good will coming along with the analysis to people that are trying to avoid. the leaders of germany and france they have this new actual vision for the euro zone could we talk about the significance of this alliance and
how going to really help to tackle the euro crisis. well sure germany is the anchor but france is also hugely important in this sort of a franco german alliance which is historically interesting here with uncle and merkel and nicolas sarkozy kind of taking a front position here what they have sort of spent several very painful very expensive very destructive weeks doing is trying to push through a wish list of fiscal control policies on their weaker partners under the guise of making this a precondition to a bailout the longer they wait the more expensive the bailout is and the bigger problem the less assured it is to work there if there still is a path forward so i don't think this is over but i think the situation grows more dire more perilous more expensive and more internationally problematic literally with each passing hour it would be nice to see people put aside their narrow political agendas and go for a solution here because we're all waiting in the balance and the you know it's the eleven and a half hour for sure and we do have this e.u.
economic summit on friday and this is supposed to be at the forefront of that summit i mean we've seen there's been a bunch of recent summits economic summits recently what is the significance of this one in helping to help the situation over there. and how can it how how how can this one be different from some of the other ones we've seen and can it be a real venue for change. so we see e.c.b. euro wide and i.m.f. related summits all this week it's a huge week politically and the solution that is convincing to various increasingly skeptical participants needs to be produced by friday evening european time we see tim geithner the u.s. treasury secretary already there making positive statements of a the united states support for the proposals coming out of the merkel sarkozy alliance be the urgency of the matter will see the global central bankers emerging we're going to have to see a very credible long long term as well as immediate pattern of solutions that shore
up the financial markets solve the liquidity crisis slamming into european banks and also produce for the first time credible long term commitments probably in the trillion euro plus range to rebuild and recently defy the union with additional commitment to a greater fiscal policy union to go along with the now kind of flailing monetary union as yet unsupported by fiscal unity well i guess we will wait and see what happens thank you so much for weighing in as that was senior analyst for green cross capital next friday wolf. well that does it for now for more on the stories we covered go to r.t. dot com slash usa and check out our youtube page it's youtube dot com slash our team erica you can also follow me on twitter at liz wahl the alona show is coming up and a half hour will be right back here at seven c. that.